alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 44984

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ERIC ABEL ROYBAL,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 568

Filed: September 1, 2017

Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada

County. Hon. Samuel A. Hoagland, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of seven years, with a minimum 

period of confinement of two years, for possession of 

methamphetamine, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R. Dickson, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM 

Eric Abel Roybal entered an Alford plea1 to the charge of possession of a controlled 

substance. Idaho Code § 37-2732(c)(1). The district court sentenced Roybal to a unified term of 

seven years with two years determinate, suspended the sentence and placed Roybal on probation 

for a period of seven years. Roybal appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion 

by denying his request for a withheld judgment and imposing an excessive sentence.

 1 See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970). 
2

The district court determined that Roybal did not satisfy the requirements to be eligible 

for a withheld judgment. At sentencing, the court addressed Roybal’s substance abuse problems, 

his untruthful behavior, and the struggle Roybal would have on probation. The district court’s 

finding is supported by the record. The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to 

enter a withheld judgment. 

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Roybal’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
No. 10-11235.

#### Harold H. Hodge, Jr., Petitioner v. Board of County Commissioners, et al.

565 U.S. 805, 132 S. Ct. 379,

181 L. Ed. 2d 6,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6241.

October 3, 2011.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8.

Same case below, 414 Fed. Appx. 567.
*DoD 4000.25-1-M, January, 2006*

*Change 1*

*DLM 4000.25, Volume 2, November 26, 2019*

*Change 13*

**AP6.17. APPENDIX 6.17**

**REQUEST FOR VALIDATION OF MATERIEL OBLIGATIONS (FMS AND GRANT AID TRANSACTIONS)(FROM SOURCE OF SUPPLY TO ILCO)**

AP6.17.1.  Enclosed are (enter quantity) MOV Request documents (enter a listing of the documents or strike out if not applicable).  Each of the enclosed validation requests, pertaining to FMS and Grant Aid transactions, reflects quantities of the items indicated held as materiel obligations at this installation as of (enter cutoff date) and for which the requisitions are aged 180 days or more past the requisitions document number date.  The validation requests are submitted to your activity using the code contained in record position 54 of the original requisition document.

AP6.17.2.  It is required that the item indicated by each validation request be reconciled with your records.  It is also required that each enclosed MOV request be reviewed by the appropriate country Security Assistance office (SAO) to determine the continuing need for the item and quantity shown.  An AP_ response document is required for each item contained with the validation request, enclosed/listed, to indicate the desirability for continuation or cancellation of the requirement.

AP6.17.3.  Acknowledge the receipt of the enclosed validation request by inserting the date and signature below and return the correspondence to this installation.

Enclosures   MOV Request documents

   Listing of Request documents (if applicable)

_____________________________________________________________________

	(ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT)

_____________________________________________________________________

Above validation request documents were received _____________________________

	(Date)

	________________________

	(Signature)

**DO NOT DETACH**

***2***

APPENDIX 1.17

AP6.17-1

APPENDIX 6.17
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 126 (Wednesday, July 1, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 35920]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17496]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER98-2588-000]


Newfound Hydroelectric Company; Notice of Withdrawal

June 25, 1998.
    Take notice that on June 22, 1998, Newfound Hydroelectric Company 
tendered for filing Notice of Withdrawal of its filing made on April 
17, 1998, in Docket No. ER98-2588-000.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 216 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.216). All such 
motions and protests should be filed on or before July 7, 1998. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission to determine the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-17496 Filed 6-30-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
No. 10-1220.

#### John Reece Roth, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 815, 132 S. Ct. 94,

181 L. Ed. 2d 23,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6705.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 628 F.3d 827.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Viking Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John
      Kennedy,  President, Chief Operating Officer and Principal Executive
      Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best
      of
      my knowledge:





(1) the
      Report fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
      and





(2) the
      information contained in the Report
      fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
      of operations of the Company.






Dated: 
              December 19, 2007
            /s/
              John
              Kennedy
              John
                Kennedy
              President,
                Chief Operating Officer/Principal Executive
                Officer
**AGENDA**

**(As of:**  11/17/2017 8:36:55 AM**)**

**Joint Meeting:  Supply Process Review Committee (PRC), 17-2, Supply Discrepancy Reporting (SDR) PRC 17-2 Joint Physical Inventory Working Group (JPIWG)November 15-16, 2017 (Wednesday and Thursday)**
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 134 (Tuesday, July 14, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 37877]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18657]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Project No. 2042-010]


Public Utility District No. 1 of Pend Oreille County; Notice 
Rescinding Notice of Offer of Settlement

July 8, 1998.
    On May 14, 1998, the United States Department of the Interior, 
through the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, the Public Utility District No. 1 of Pend Oreille County, 
Washington, the Kalispel Tribe of Indians, the Washington State 
Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the United States Forest Service 
filed an Offer of Settlement which, if approved by the Commission, 
would resolve the pending license amendment application for the Box 
Canyon Project No. 2042, filed by the District on February 18, 1997.
    Notice of the Settlement Agreement was issued on may 27, 1998, 63 
FR 29,983 (June 2, 1998), establishing dates of June 17, 1998, for 
comments and June 29, 1998, for reply comments. A second notice of the 
Settlement Agreement was inadvertently issued on June 25, 1998, 63 Fed. 
Reg. 35,920 (July 1, 1998). The June 25, 1998 notice is hereby revoked.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-18657 Filed 7-13-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
EX-10.2



 Exhibit 10.2 

FIRST AMENDMENT TO BOARD OF DIRECTORS 

LETTER AGREEMENT 
 THIS AMENDMENT
No. 1 (the “Amendment”) to the Board of Directors Letter Agreement (the “Letter Agreement”), dated September 17, 2013, by and between PURE Bioscience, Inc. (the “Company”) and Gary Cohee a member of the
Company’s Board of Directors (“Mr. Cohee”), is made effective as of April 24, 2014, (the “Effective Date”), by and between the Company and Mr. Cohee. 

WITNESSETH 
 WHEREAS, the Company and
Mr. Cohee are parties to the Letter Agreement; and 
 WHEREAS, the parties now intend to amend the Letter Agreement to modify certain terms and
provisions of the Letter Agreement governing Mr. Cohee’s compensation. 
 NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions
contained herein, the parties hereby agree as follows: 
  

	1.	Amendment. The last paragraph of the section titled “Compensation” is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows: 


“Further, the Company shall also pay you a quarterly fee in the amount of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000) for consulting and investor
relations services provided to the Company. 
  

	2.	Approval of Amendment. By their signatures below, the Company and Mr. Cohee hereby adopt this Amendment. 

  

	3.	Necessary Acts. Each party to this Amendment hereby agrees to perform any further acts and to execute and deliver any further documents that may be necessary or required to carry out the intent and provisions of
this Amendment and the transactions contemplated hereby. 

  

	4.	Governing Law. This Amendment shall be governed in all respects by the internal laws of the State of California. 

  

	5.	Continued Validity. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, the Letter Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 


 

	6.	Facsimile; Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed by facsimile or electronic transmission and in any number of counterparts by the parties hereto all of which together shall constitute one instrument.


 [Remainder of Page Left Intentionally Blank] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment effective as of the Effective
Date. 
  

			
	PURE BIOSCIENCE, INC.
		
	By:	 	/s/ Henry R. Lambert.
	Name:	 	Henry R. Lambert.
	Title:	 	Chief Executive Officer


  

	
	GARY COHEE
	
	/s/ Gary Cohee
	(Signature)
#### In the Matter of Jonathan A., Respondent, v Tiffany V., Appellant.

[62 NYS3d 272]

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Jennifer Burtt, Ref.), entered on or about September 23, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from, directed that the child be enrolled in school in Bronx County and that, if the mother moves to Queens in the future, the father be awarded primary physical custody, with visitation to the mother on three weekends each month, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, and the order vacated to that extent.

The mother does not challenge the Family Court’s determination that the parties’ relationship was too antagonistic for joint legal custody, and its consequent delegation of decision-making authority to each parent over different facets of the child’s upbringing, with education to the father and medical care to the mother. She also does not challenge the Family Court’s order directing an equal parenting time schedule, which the parties had been following on consent since August 27, 2015.

Because the mother’s petition did not seek permission to relocate with the child, the Family Court’s order that custody be modified to set a particular parenting time schedule in the event that the mother moved in the future lacked a sound and substantial basis in the record *(see generally Eschbach v Eschbach,*56 NY2d 167 [1982]; *Matter of Gregory D. v Athena Q.,*149 AD3d 542 [1st Dept 2017]).

There was also no basis for the Family Court to direct that the child be enrolled in school in Bronx County since the father was granted final decision-making authority on education issues.

Concur — Tom, J.R, Richter, Andrias, Gesmer and Singh, JJ.
Exhibit 10.2

 




CONFIDENTIAL


 


Michael Bender


4838 Jenkins Avenue


North Charleston, SC 29405


Tel: (843) 744-5174


Email: benderm@intertechsc.com


 


March 7, 2014


 


Mr. David McCann


Chairman


Fyffes plc


29 North Anne Street


Dublin 7, Ireland


 


Re: Proposed Transaction


 


Dear Mr. McCann:


 


I write on behalf of The Article 6 Marital
Trust under The First Amended and Restated Jerry Zucker Revocable Trust dated April 2, 2007 (the “Trust”), one of the
largest shareholders of Fyffes plc (the “Company”). The Trust is presently the beneficial owner of 39,034,612 ordinary
shares of the Company (together with any additional shares of the Company that the Trust may acquire after the date hereof, and
less any shares of the Company that the Trust may sell or otherwise transfer from the date hereof, the “Shares”). As
a preliminary matter, I would like to formally state that the Trust is highly supportive of the Company’s board of directors
(the “Board”), officers, and management team.


 


We understand that the Board is in the
process of authorizing the Company to enter into a proposed combination transaction with a company referred to as “Chicago,
Inc.,” pursuant to which “New Chicago,” a private limited liability company organized under the laws of Ireland,
would acquire the entire issued and to be issued share capital of the Company (the “Transaction”). A copy of the draft
2.5 announcement has been shared with us, and a copy thereof is attached hereto as Schedule I (the “2.5 Announcement”).


 


This letter is to confirm that the Trust
is currently highly supportive of the Transaction as reflected in the 2.5 Announcement, and that, so long as the Board is supportive
of the Transaction or the transaction agreement is not otherwise terminated or materially modified as determined by the Trust in
the Trust’s sole and absolute discretion, the Trust will (x) vote all of its Shares in favor of any proposal submitted to
the Company’s shareholders to approve the Transaction and (y) not engage in discussions, or otherwise solicit third party
interest, regarding an alternative acquisition proposal for the Company. Notwithstanding anything contained herein, the Trust expressly
reserves the right to sell or otherwise transfer any or all of its Shares to any third party upon any such terms and conditions
as the Trust may accept, in the Trust’s sole and absolute discretion. Further, the Trust expressly reserves the right to
purchase or otherwise acquire any additional shares of the Company from any third party upon any such terms and conditions as the
Trust may accept, in the Trust’s sole and absolute discretion.


 




    	 



    	 



    

 


CONFIDENTIAL


 


We also confirm that the Trust has no objection
to any public disclosure by the Company or Chicago of the support referred to in this letter and that the Company may provide a
copy of this letter to Chicago, Inc.


 


Yours very truly,


 


/s/ Michael Bender


Michael Bender, Esquire


 


cc:     Robert
Johnston
# C_2014253EN.01006902.xml

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/69 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/69

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 25 June 2014 — Molina Solano v Europol

(Case F-66/13) (1)

1

((Staff cases - Europol Staff - Europol Convention - Staff Regulations applicable to Europol employees - Decision 2009/371/JHA - Application of the CEOS to Europol agents - Non-renewal of a fixed term contract as a member of the temporary staff - Refusal to grant a fixed term contract as a member of the temporary staff))

2014/C 253/97

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Beatriz Molina Solano (The Hague, Netherlands) (represented by: J.-J. Ghosez, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Police Office (represented initially by J. Arnould and D. Neumann, agents, and then by J. Arnould, D. Neumann and D. El Khoury, agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision not to renew the applicant’s fixed-term contract.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Declares that Ms Molina Solano is to bear her own costs and orders her to pay those incurred by the European Police Office. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that Ms Molina Solano is to bear her own costs and orders her to pay those incurred by the European Police Office.

---

(1)  OJ C 274 of 21/09/2013, p. 30.

1

---
<PAGE>


EXHIBIT 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


IN CONNECTION WITH THE AMENDMENT TO THE ANNUAL REPORT OF EMERSON RADIO CORP.,
(THE "COMPANY") ON FORM 10-K-A FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 2005, FILED WITH
THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION (THE "REPORT"), GEOFFREY P. JURICK, CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AND GUY A. PAGLINCO, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, OF THE COMPANY
EACH HEREBY CERTIFIES PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, THAT:

(1) THE REPORT FULLY COMPLIES WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 13(A) OR 15(D) OF
THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AS AMENDED; AND

(2) THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE REPORT FAIRLY PRESENTS, IN ALL MATERIAL
RESPECTS, THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL CONDITION OF THE COMPANY AS OF THE DATES
PRESENTED AND THE CONSOLIDATED RESULT OF OPERATIONS OF THE COMPANY FOR THE
PERIODS PRESENTED.


DATED: JULY 29, 2005
                                                 BY: /S/ GEOFFREY P. JURICK
                                                 GEOFFREY P. JURICK
                                                 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


                                                 BY: /S/ GUY A. PAGLINCO
                                                 VICE PRESIDENT AND
                                                 CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter
63 of Title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form
10-K/A or as a separate disclosure document.

A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906, OR OTHER
DOCUMENT AUTHENTICATING, ACKNOWLEDGING, OR OTHERWISE ADOPTING THE SIGNATURE THAT
APPEARS IN TYPED FORM WITHIN THE ELECTRONIC VERSION OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT
REQUIRED BY SECTION 906, HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO EMERSON RADIO CORP. AND WILL BE
RETAINED BY EMERSON RADIO CORP. AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
No. 10-6363.

#### Herbert Robinson, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 975, 131 S. Ct. 493,

178 L. Ed. 2d 312,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7908.

October 12, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals denied.

Same case below, 996 A.2d 849.
Skip directly to site content Skip directly to search


Español  Other Languages


Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC twenty four seven. Saving Lives, Protecting People
 Search

		Submit


Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs)








Communication Resources						Print
																Related Pages
										Communication resources to help educate people in your community.Social Media ResourcesSTI Awareness WeekSTD Prevention InfographicsSTD Widgets
							
					
							Last Reviewed:  April 11, 2023						Source: 	Division of STD Prevention, National Center for HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
					Facebook
        Twitter
        LinkedIn
        Syndicate homePublic Health ProfessionalsCommunication ResourcesProfessional DevelopmentFacts & InformationProgram Funding and ManagementData & StatisticsTreatment and Screening For Healthcare Providers For Public Health Professionals Follow STD STD on Twitter
STD on Facebook


About CDC
					Contact Us
					800-232-4636
 Facebook Twitter Instagram LinkedIn Youtube Pinterest Snapchat
 CONTACT CDC
				Contact Us
							Call 800-232-4636
							Email Us
			ABOUT CDC
				About CDC
							Jobs
							Funding
			POLICIES
				Accessibility
							External Links
							Privacy
							Policies
							No Fear Act
							FOIA
							OIG
							Nondiscrimination
							Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
			CONNECT WITH US
				Facebook
								Twitter
								Instagram
								LinkedIn
							Youtube
								Pinterest
								Snapchat
								Email
			LANGUAGES
				Español
							繁體中文
							Tiếng Việt
							한국어
							Tagalog
							Русский
							العربية
							Kreyòl Ayisyen
							Français
							Polski
							Português
							Italiano
							Deutsch
							日本語
							فارسی
							English


U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
			Accessibility
			External Links
			Privacy
			Policies
			No Fear Act
			FOIA
			Nondiscrimination
			OIG
			Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
			USA.gov


Exit Notification / Disclaimer Policy Close
 Links with this icon  indicate that you are leaving the CDC website. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) cannot attest to the accuracy of a non-federal website.
				Linking to a non-federal website does not constitute an endorsement by CDC or any of its employees of the sponsors or the information and products presented on the website.
				You will be subject to the destination website's privacy policy when you follow the link.
				CDC is not responsible for Section 508 compliance (accessibility) on other federal or private website. Website Disclaimers
 Cancel Continue
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 13

- 00216

- CR

Ezekiel Gabriel Wiggins

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From the 89th District Court

o f Wichita County (51,027

- C )

April 30 , 2015

Opinion by Justice Meier

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

S ECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Bill Meier

Justice Bill Meier
Enclosure 5, ADC 1300

Page 3